Results for “outcome”

当用户询问 ClinicalTrials.gov / 临床试验 / NCT / 试验注册 / 招募状态 / phase 1/2/3 / RCT lookup / sponsor 检索 / interventional trial / observational study / 主次要终点 / trial outcomes / 试验招募中 / recruiting status 时,通过 ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 实时检索官方注册数据。专注实时单次查询(≤1000 条/请求),典型场景: "某 NCT 试验最新状态"、"BTK 抑制剂 Phase 3 在招募试验"、"某试验已发布的主次要终点结果"。明确边界: 批量 >10k 试验 / 全库 SQL 历史分析 → aact-bulk-trials; 关联 PubMed 文献 → pubmed-eutils; RCT 自动 GRADE 评级 → medical-evidence-grading; 引用入报告附录 → evidence-appendix-sync。跨平台无锁(Claude Code / Codex / Cursor 通用)。

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Design phishing and social engineering simulations with explicit authorization and measurable outcomes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Set up authorized C2 simulation workflows and measure defensive detection outcomes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use this skill when a new product feature, vendor, AI use, monitoring tool or change in processing raises the question "do we need a DPIA", or someone asks "DPIA screening", "is this high risk processing", "data protection impact assessment threshold", "privacy impact screening for this feature", "does our AI feature need a DPIA" or "document why we did not do a DPIA". Describes the processing with numbers, tests it against the GDPR cases, the supervisory authority's list and the EDPB-endorsed criteria, reaches a reasoned outcome (required, recommended, not required) with a re-screen trigger, and keeps a screening log for accountability.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when evaluating a completed or in-progress project across scope, correctness, quality, testing, and learning outcomes using structured Praise-Critique-Grow feedback.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run a governed R&D session — diamond 1 of the double diamond, which defines the problem and names which fan-out artifacts are warranted. Use when the operator pastes external material and says "consider this for gzkit", asks "is there something here gzkit is missing or could improve on", opens an exploratory design discussion whose outcome is not yet known, or asks why a class of defects keeps recurring and how the issues carrying it should be restructured. Ends at a six-row disposition map and operator sign-off; produces no fan-out artifact itself. Operator-invoked only.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

XML-specified Android UI journey testing, interactive step execution, assertion verification, and JSON outcome reporting.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Route agent work through AccInt's MCP memory loop: retrieve prior outcomes, resolve frames, and close commitments with evidence.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Produces a DRAFT 30-60-90 day onboarding plan for a new hire from the role, the team context and the systems list: phase outcomes traced to the role, activities with a named owner and due window, an access and equipment request table, learning items, manager checkpoints and the items the manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an onboarding plan for our new hire", "draft the induction plan for this role", "write a first 90 days plan", "put together a new starter plan with owners", "create a ramp plan from this job description" or "plan the integration of an internal mover". Do not use for writing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for interview questions or a scorecard, use interview-scorecard-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Turns one meeting transcript, recording recap or set of raw notes into concise DRAFT minutes returned in the chat as a single Markdown document: header metadata, attendance and apologies, agenda items each with a short neutral summary and outcome, numbered decisions with an owner, numbered action items with owner and due date, open questions, carried-over actions and the next-meeting line, every entry backed by a short verbatim source fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write the minutes", "draft minutes from this transcript", "turn these notes into meeting minutes", "produce the minutes of meeting for today's call", "tidy my rough minutes into the standard format" or "prepare the minutes for circulation". Do not use for extracting action items, task lists or per-owner follow-up emails alone, use transcript-to-actions instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Drafts one anonymised DRAFT case study (situation, approach, outcome as evidenced, optional lessons) from engagement notes, status reports, closing reports, emails and metrics extracts the user supplies, with a fact trace to the notes, an evidence grade on every result, quotes only where the user supplied them with speaker role and permission, an anonymisation log and a confidentiality checklist that must be completed before publication. Use when the user asks to "write a case study from these notes", "turn this engagement into a customer story", "draft a success story for the website", "anonymise this project write-up" or "prepare a reference case for the proposal". Do not use for redacting identifiers from an existing document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; for checking whether a document's claims are substantiated, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Drafts a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Reconstruct a daily or weekly worklog from observed activity and outcomes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Knowledge base from CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0. Use for prioritized IT/OT baseline cyber goals aligned to NIST CSF 2.0 (including GOVERN), critical-infrastructure hygiene, MSP/supply-chain expectations, and board-friendly outcome language. Covers CPG 2.0 goals only; does not replace full CSF programs, sector-specific goals (SSGs), or CSET tooling detail.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Quietly reuse and improve verified coding lessons across agents. Use for a nontrivial debugging or implementation problem where an earlier solution could help, when a Blaze offer or receipt appears, or when the user asks to inspect, install, update, contribute to, or link Blaze. Check applicability, verify locally, and close the lookup with an honest outcome and contribution disposition without adding routine user-visible narration.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Research any open-source repository end to end and answer the core question — SHOULD YOU contribute to it? — with a GO / NO-GO / GO-IF verdict backed by evidence: snapshot, momentum, contribution landscape (PR acceptance rates, outside-contributor merge rates, first-timer outcomes), issue health, governance, community sentiment, and a final go/no-go recommendation. Use when the user asks 'should I contribute to X', wants a before-I-contribute due-diligence check on a project, asks whether a project accepts outside PRs, wants contribution-health numbers like PR merge rates or stale-PR counts, or asks for a deep dive on an open-source codebase's health and dynamics before investing time in it.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

How to read submitted JetFormBuilder form data from a custom action, transform it (including %macro% replacement of admin-typed templates), call an external HTTP API, write the response back into the form context for downstream actions to use, and dispatch JFB events based on the API outcome. Use when building a custom action that integrates with a third-party service (LLM call, webhook, CRM, payment processor, geolocation lookup) and needs the action to behave as a node in a data-flow graph rather than a one-shot leaf. Triggers on mentions of "jet_fb_context", "update_request", "has_field", "get_value", "wp_remote_post" with form data, "macro replacement", or "API call from action".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

XML-specified Android UI journey testing, interactive step execution, assertion verification, and JSON outcome reporting.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when summarizing agent evaluations where autonomous, assisted, failed, timed-out, or invalid outcomes must remain distinct and comparable.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Triage acc's open promises and close them with honest real-world verdicts via acc_act(runtime="outcome").

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "run a launch retro / post-mortem", "compare launch results vs targets by channel", or "decide what to keep or kill for the next launch"; produces a structured D1/W1/M1 retrospective — a per-channel actual-vs-target table (UTM-attributed own analytics as the truth column, platform self-reported numbers as reference, every figure labeled Measured / User-provided / Estimated), a 5-Whys chain on the single largest miss, keep / kill / change decisions per channel, 3-5 actionable learnings for the next launch, and an outcome snapshot submitted to the launch registry. Not for return math (CPA / ROI) — use roi-calculator; not for the stakeholder-facing report writeup — use report-generator; not for a metric deep-dive — use performance-analyzer. 发布复盘/渠道归因/5-Whys/keep-kill

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "log this launch", query a launch date/embargo, record a stage transition, or update submissions/outcomes; curates launch facts through the append-only launches event stream with optimistic revisions and derived dossier/calendar views. Not for RAMP scoring — use launch-readiness-auditor; not for planning tier/window — use launch-tier-planner. 发布台账/发布日历/阶段与禁运期记录

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Control risky structural change by proving a refactor is necessary and that behaviour, contracts, data, security boundaries, and operational properties can be preserved through a staged migration. Use whenever the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, modernise, extract, migrate, rewrite, or re-architect existing code, or asks whether they should. Prefer this over starting the refactor. DO NOT REFACTOR is a first-class outcome. Part of the audit suite; inherits the shared constitution while its own job is proving necessity and behavioural preservation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Act as FriendlyBet's CEO and primary front door for every FriendlyBet request through automatic company preflight. Own end-to-end routing, planning, execution coordination, department orchestration, decision-rights enforcement, quality gates, board-style reporting, and escalation only for strategic, legal, brand, cost, risk, or taste decisions. Use by default in FriendlyBet threads, with full department planning for broad, ambiguous, strategic, cross-functional, or outcome-driven requests such as SEO, new features, multi-sport expansion, product direction, release execution, company operations, or agent coordination.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.